Check out this post from the Internet Monk, The Order of Christian Worship. In it Chaplain Mike recounts his own experience of the two (and a half) predominant Christian worship structures:

Speaking broadly, the traditional liturgical pattern is designed for worship, the revivalist pattern for bringing people to a place of decision.

In the churches that have more of a teaching style, the revivalist/teaching pattern functions primarily to instruct and equip Christians through Biblical knowledge. The decisional aspect is not as immediate. Life change is encouraged through applying the Word.

Here are some more excerpts. Would love to know what you think.

I became convinced long ago…

That Christian worship follows a certain order.

That this order has been proven sound and salutary through the church’s history.

That the main parts of this order involve Christians meeting around (1) the Word, and (2) the Table (and Baptism on occasions when it is practiced).

That the purpose of these two main parts is to lead us to Christ through the retelling of the Gospel.

That the subsidiary parts lead to and from the main parts: (1) Gathering, and (2) Sending.

That whatever elements are practiced in worship should serve the liturgy (music, prayers, testimonies, readings, drama, etc.) by enabling the congregation to prepare for or respond to the revelation of Christ in Word and Table.

I became more and more dissatisfied with the revivalist/teaching pattern of church service primarily because I found it did not assist me in truly worshiping God. It did not lead me into Gospel realities week after week. It focused too much on specific instruction or areas of decision that did not always include the entire congregation. It did not enable me to feel that I was part of the communion of saints gathered around the throne. There may have been a “praise” portion of the service, but as a whole it did not seem to me that the service was centered on Christ and what he has done for us, but rather it was mainly about learning or making decisions about what I should be doing for Christ.

But some of you are probably saying, why do we have to talk about an “order” for worship at all? Aren’t we just called to come to church and worship God? Can’t we just gather and worship from our hearts?

No.

Every meeting has an order. No congregation that I know of is truly and absolutely spontaneous when they meet together. Everyone has a “liturgy,” a pattern of what we do when we gather. (Surprisingly, you might discover that the “non-liturgical” churches are stricter in their patterns and less “free” in their worship than many “liturgical” congregations!) This order is simple and centered on the Gospel. It provides the basic form in which we can freely worship God through our Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness of the Spirit.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Hey Ryan!It's so amazing to read this on your blog today, because it was exactly, exactly what I was thinking about as I left church this past weekend. You see, in the last two weeks, I've been to a Catholic mass twice. It was the first time I've been to a mass since I was confirmed over 20 years ago. I have been seriously pondering the differences in worship styles at the two very different churches. And my conclusion was the same as in the article you quoted. In the Catholic church, very liturgical, the teaching is a very little part, and communion is the focus - focusing on what Jesus has done, in a way that differs relatively little from place to place. On the other hand, our non- denominational Protestant church focuses much more on teaching from the word, fleshing out a biblical story with modern day examples. Very helpful, but much more focused on what we need to do that what Jesus has done. Also, much more dependent on who the teacher is. I see both sides and feel torn as to which is better. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Sorry for writing a book on your blog!Carrie

First of all, I'd be interested to hear why Confirmation was the end of your Catholic worship, when it's supposed to be a new beginning! :)

Seriously, though, we have all seen this nominalism in many Catholics (and Protestants!), where people are Christian only in name, but not in actual identity and lifestyle. You get baptized, or you get confirmed, or you go to church week after week, and you check it off your list and think, "I'm good."

Church leaders across the board are becoming increasingly aware of this, and many of them have been making more of an effort to lead their parishioners/congregants into a true appropriation of the actions of worship.

On the other hand, many Protestant leaders have reacted, based on their experiences, by rendering the historic elements of worship unnecessary or irrelevant, and so they throw them out of their worship gatherings and replace them with "relevant" worship components.

What Chaplain Mike is saying (and I agree) is that it is foolish for us to throw out the historic (and biblical!) order of worship, and instead we ought to infuse meaning back into these essential components of worship. That's what leading worship is all about.

Now, concerning the balance of Word and Table, I'm no historian, but I believe the Reformers attempted to recover the centrality of the Word (teaching, exhorting) in a culture of nominalism. Church leaders were treacherously misleading their parishioners through fear and manipulation, and the result was a church full of nominals, alleviating their fears and maintaining their "I'm good" status through indulgences and attending Eucharist. As long as you do these things, you're good. Not all that different than the church today, eh?

But interestingly, Luther, Calvin, et al., had no intention of throwing out the historic elements of worship, and instead to infuse them with meaning, especially through recovering the Word, by which faith comes. Recover the Word, and it will have a trickle-down effect, infusing life and meaning to the rest of the service. And it did.

But again, further down the road, leaders decided that it would be easier to lead their people in worship (or to a decision!) by means other than the historic components of worship. I imagine it was because it was too hard to lead their people to a quantifiable decision using the historic structure of worship. So they tapped into the narratives of other kingdoms--of the marketplace, of consumer capitalism, of the entertainment industry, of nationalism--and replaced the historic elements with these cultural elements in order to better lead their people in what they believe is worship, but what is really just a measurable decision. A new kind of manipulation, indeed.

Many churches who have done this have redefined worship. Now worship means thirty minutes of singing romantic songs to God, or moral upstanding, or prosperity, or patriotic devotion. This has become the new normal to a generation.

This generation of the Contemporary Church (non-denominational Protestant church, free church, whatever you want to call it) is largely unfamiliar with the historic structure and elements of worship. And the previous generation--those who left their liturgical traditions for something "better"--many of them miss their traditional roots, and many want to have nothing to do with it. They have bought into the new kind of "worship" that the Contemporary Church offers.

And what Chaplain Mike is saying is they're worse off for it. It's comfortable and makes sense to them because it fits so well with all the other this-worldly activity they participate in. That makes me sad, because as Christians we are part of a radically different story, and yet the church is telling and enacting the inferior stories of this culture.

But it also motivates me as a worship pastor to call people in (not to call them out, but in) to a much greater story--the story that is told every week in the historic liturgy; the story that calls us into the communion of saints (and out of individualism); the story in which God acts first, calling us, speaking to us, re-membering us, and sending us, and to which we respond by gathering, hearing the Word, remembering him at the Table, departing to love and serve the world.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, Ryan! I very much appreciate having a worship pastor who really ponders what he is doing, and why, as opposed to just singing some cool songs because he likes being on stage. I'm going to print this off and take it camping with us this weekend, and keep thinking about it. :)Feel free to email me personally if you would like to continue this conversation without me taking over your blog!Carrie(carrie@krusemark.com)

I've been chewing on the original post and your comments for some time now, and finally came to the realization that I agree.

Where I see the tension is (at the risk of using a popular catch-phrase) cultural relevance. I see many churches become so liturgical that they die out for lack of relevance in their community, resting on what is comfortable and familiar, but not realizing that they are the proverbial frog in the slow boiling water. After a while, a "decision" has to be made by an individual or body of believers to move forward in making a difference somehow, somewhere. Inherent in the Gospel message is a call to action unique to all of us.

I guess crossing the line away from the basic message is based on the individual church's personality. Our actions need the centrality of Christ on the cross or they are for naught.

You and I both, John. I'm always over-thinking things. True worship is only an abstract ideal until it finds expression in real, down-to-earth relationships. Are we effectively leading out people to the worship of God? Are we effectively communicating his message and accurately enacting it as his people?